ashe

There is nothing wrong with this. Individuals are free to express themselves as they desire.

In this case, it is not the responsibility of Mughal to stop expressing himself, but rather the responsibility of our elected officials to behave appropriately as they should do. After all, we elected them.

If you are SO concerned about this, why don't you write to your elected representative and urge him or her to place less weight on opinions of citizens from other countries?

Actually wait -- this is all starting to sound familiar. Take China. What happens when they kill or arrest cultists (like Falun Gong)? The international human rights groups get their panties in a twist. Are you saying that these groups just shouldn't bother conducting letter-writing campaigns or holding protests? That it is somehow rude or impolite?

I don't think so. Morals evolve through social contracts. Therefore, if a large number of humans express disgust toward a Canadian policy, even if it is motivated by voter desire, Canadians might want to think twice about it. Since we as citizens cannot directly make law, therefore it is the responsibility of our representatives to "think twice about it" for us. In the end, they may still decide to go ahead with our wishes. That's their job - to represent us.

So, really, you should take this up with your MP instead of with Mughal. Mughal is doing the right thing.

ashe

ashe

Besides, it's much easier to stem the tide by focusing on convincing your MP instead of trying to swat down every little demagogue that comes along.

ashe

jbernier

That is one of my major concerns here. Witness statements about sinister Muslim conspiracies.

jbernier

Mughal,

I think that I was a bit unfair to you. I know that you are motivated by a sincere desire to better people's lives. However, you did strike a nerve by what seemed to me to be a very paternalistic attitude: You seemed to be saying that we Canadians were just too ignorant to figure out what so blatantly obvious to you. I know that was not what you were saying but I might suggest that you look back over your posts to see where I would have gotten that impression.

Also, a word of advice: Many Canadians would react exactly as I did to non-Canadians geting involved in Canadian politics. The very act of you doing so would be seen as an affront by many. There a quite a few who would come to support the introduction Sharia law simply so that Canada would be seen as capitulating to foreign interests. I saw this happen with 'God Hates Fags.' They came up starting in 1999 to protest Supreme Court decisions re: same-sex marriage. They burned the Canadian flag in front of the Supreme Court in Ottawa. I know quite a few people who became rabid defenders of gay rights as a result of their indignation that foreigners would burn the Canadian flag (on Canada Day) right in the heart of the capital. I think you really need to better understand Canadian sociology here.

DMB

Burning the flag of another country is an insult. Warning about possible consequences of proposed legislation isn't.

A majority of the members of this board appear to be citizens of the USA. A great deal of discussion of the internal politics of that country goes on here. Is it offensive for foreigners such as you and I, jbernier, to express our opinions of anything to do with US politics?

Mughal

Not to worry, dear jbernier, it was just brotherly exchange of words. Many thanks for your prticipation.

Wishing you success and happines with love.

jbernier

Again, my issue was not with discussion of Canadian politics (and in fact have explicitly made that clear several times now; I can understand if my initial comments were misread thus but after several clarifications I am quite honestly a bit confused about how this misconception persists. Perhaps "That is not what I am saying..." did not clearly enough state that "That is not what I am saying...").

Anyways, my issue was with the active attempt to influence Canadian domestic policy. Different things. You can disagree with my thoughts about that; I don't mind. But what is the point in disagreeing with something which I was not arguing?

socratoad

In the case of american politics/ policies etc ..... everyone on the planet have not only a right but a duty to comment on such things as America has its nose firmly in the business of every nation.

As to "foreigners" commenting on canadian politics/policies etc, please feel free. I am not that thin skinned or insecure that I feel threatened by the observations of others, no matter where they reside. If I believe the person to be way off base then I shall do my very best to enlighten them within my own personal limitations. If they should query this or that or offer helpful insights then all the better. It is aways helpful see how others perceive us, and sometimes others have the advantage of being able to separate the forest from the trees.

In short: lighten up a tad everyone

jbernier

Okay. Let us look closely at the three demands made by the petition. The first thing to note is that not one of them actually refers to Sharia. This begs the question of ulterior motive, a question which I think will recur as we read the text.

The first sentence is problematic insofar as it raises the question of communal religious activity. Synagogue services, church services, etc., are communal activity; what would such a declaration mean for them?

Much more problematic, however, is the second sentence. What is meant by education? Education in public schools? Education in private schools? Education at home? Would it mean that parents would no longer have the right to send their children to the private school of their choice, if that private school taught religion? To me, this would seem to contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of freedom of conscience. Not to mention that Canadian practice has increasingly been to have a secular, public, system and private alternatives to that system (as well as a publicly funded Catholic system in some provinces, which personally I am against but that is a difference issue).

Fear enough. Of course this demand is a bit unnecessary as it is already the practice in Canada. Generally speaking the Canadian courts have always said that freedom from violence outweighs any freedom of conscience.

Same critique as point one, above. Note also that we do not have an establishment clause in our Charter that is analogous to that found in the American constitution. Nonetheless, church and state have tended to be much more separated in practice here in Canada than in the states as it is.

Now, here is my biggest problem: This petition is supposed to be about Sharia. Yet the demands are all about education! This strikes me as a bit of a bait and switch - get people all fired up about Sharia then make them make demands about the educational system. And this is precisely why I was less than impressed about non-Canadians taking it upon themselves to join this protest; other issues - like education - are being tied up in this discussion and I just don't know if I like people all over the world telling me how my country should educate its children.

jbernier

Neither am I...but making demands of our government, different matter entirely. My issue is with demands, not observations - and demands is precisely the word used in the petition that was posted in the OP. My point - my only point on this - is that non-Canadians do not have the standing to demand anything of our government on domestic policy (particularly about such things as education) as our government does not represent them.